Ten years of ocean science and conservation online.

A primer for climate change

Sea level rise. Desertification. Ocean acidification. Climategate. Permafrost. Greenland ice sheet. Hockey stick. The language of global climate change can be overwhelming. Every year, as we learn more about the ways that human activity fundamentally alter global processes, the subject becomes even broader and more complicated. Fortunately, world renowned oceanographer Orrin Pilkey and his son, Keith Pilkey, have produced a comprehensive and readable primer on global climate change. The strength of Global Climate Change: A Primer can be broken into three sections – the content, the conflict, and the illustrations.

The Content

The Pilkies are excellent writers and do an impressive, thorough job covering most of the issues involved in global climate change. The target audience for this book is the general public, so the style is heavy on anecdotes and light on dense jargon. While they touch on most of the aspects of climate change, some of sections are weaker than others. Pilkey the senior is an accomplished oceanographer who works on barrier island, so the sections on ocean acidification, sea level rise, and changes in coastal processes are, almost necessarily, the strongest and most compelling.

That doesn’t mean that other topics are short changed. For a 120 page book, the breadth of subject matter is impressive. Anyone interested in examining a specific climate change topic would do well to start with this primer.

One thing that is lacking is an accessible bibliography. The standard bibliography is an excellent collection of sources, but it is difficult to link the references with the text. A thorough collection of end notes, connecting each page to the references mentioned would make it easier for the reader to track down the primary sources.

The Conflict

Complementing the discussion of the causes and effects of global climate change are frank and thoughtful responses to the misconceptions, myths, and outright deceptions common to the climate change denial movement. Each chapter ends with a “myths” section that takes a firm look at the claims made by climate change deniers and thoroughly debunks them. Every claim I’ve heard in recent years is in this book and critically addressed.

Two chapters are entirely dedicated to the manufacture of doubt. These two chapters really shine as new and important contributions to the climate change literature. Climategate, the leaking of several thousand e-mails which, though it revealed absolutely nothing, became a lightning rod for the denialist industry (and I do mean industry, as they painstakingly lay out the funding sources and motives behind the major political and corporate players who are manufacturing climate change dissent). To paraphrase Senator Inhofe, the myth that human activities haven’t led to measurable and significant changes to the natural systems governing the earth’s climate is the real “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

But Pilkey and Pilkey don’t just pick on the low hanging fruits of climate change deniers. They also address some of the misconceptions that have promulgated through the climate change community, explain some of the issues with mathematical models, and discuss the detrimental results of “bandwagon” and “state-of-siege” effects.

These chapters could best be summed up with a quote from Elizabeth Kolbert:

“No one has ever offered a plausible account of why thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries would bother to engineer a climate hoax.”

Edingsville Beach by Mary Edna Fraser

Illustrations

It is weird to refer to the illustrations in a book about climate change as beautiful, but that’s the only way to describe the batiks by Mary Edna Fraser. In the most dramatic departure from traditional popular science literature, Pilkey and Pilkey eschew diagrams and photographs common to the style and illustrate the book with luscious, vibrant silk printings of landscapes and seascapes that evoke the central topics of the book with devastating effect. While a book founded in science, by nature, adheres to data and dry analysis, the illustrations appeal to the readers’ emotions, creating a global sense of place that cannot be captured in figures and photographs.

As an introductory book on global climate change, this is by far the best I’ve found. It’s ideal for the non-specialist who wants to learn more about the issues and get an appreciation for how far out to lunch the denial lobby is. This illustrations alone are worth the price. Also of note is the final chapter on geoengineering, which proposes some possible solutions to the the current problem, adding some hope to an otherwise doom-and-gloom subject.

Post navigation

69 comments

mikef
· July 24, 2011

Contrary to E Kolbert, her question is a misdirection. Thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries were duped by a clique who conspired to prevent the release of data legally accessible data (denial of FOIA which has been released after legal action), used faulty data (bad station data, bad tree rings, inverted lake sediment data), acted to prevent publication of counter hypothesis (see ample evidence in climate gate emails). These mis-representation of science has duped thousands of scientist and may are concerned (Check out Dr.Mullars video). Misrepresenting the “conflict” makes you look a shill for the team, and discredits you.

Yup, you got me. I’m an unabashed shill for reality (the pay scheme is lousy though). Climategate revealed absolutely nothing and the people involved were cleared of any wrong doing, despite a well-organized and well-funded campaign to smear hard-working, honest scientists. Each and ever issue you raised is thoroughly debunked in the book.

gerrybuddy
· July 24, 2011

Here is a link to some of the Climate Gate emails. This appears to be the “worst” ones. Most of these stand alone as being even more damning and awful than I thought before I went to look at them myself. Just skim or read them yourself.

The website states:
“They are all dated so you can trace them back to source if you want to read the full text.”

Poorly formatted copypasta from a pro-frakking website? Not very compelling.

Chris F
· July 24, 2011

Climategate revealed nothing? Go over to Climate Audit and get your head out of the sand. Data manipulation, FOI denials for no reason other than to comply would expose the deception, three so-called inquiries headed by people with every reason to not find anything wrong with their behaviour, indeed even not asking the important questions!
The only “thoroughly debunked” is virtually every proclamation made by these charlatans.
History will not be kind to them or to those like you that unquestioningly stand behind this false religion. A good and proper scientist is a thoroughly skeptical scientist, not one who runs with the current fad and writes books toeing the party line and screaming apocalypse.
And leave the emotions at home, there’s no place for them in science.

The only conspiracy is the one being manufactured by people with an ideological commitment to denying the reality pumping hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere alter global processes.

gerrybuddy
· July 24, 2011

” The scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing by an INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL”

They were not independent. The statement above is factually inaccurate

So the UEA paid the salary of the chief civil servant during the investigation in one of the review panels? So what? I’m betting if they hadn’t paid his salary you’d be whinging that the government had to pay for the investigation, and if they’d refused to pay his salary you’d be citing that as proof that they were unwilling to cooperate. It’s a lose lose, even when they try to act in good faith because, for the deniers, it’s not about the truth, it’s about winning.

Paul D
· August 6, 2011

Chris F——-
It should be pointed out that it is only because British law allows FOI requests from foreign nationals that an issue arose. I’m guessing you are a patriotic old bean, so how would your philosophy cope if British law was more ‘patriotic’ and considered the data to be of national importance?? Then FOI requests from Americans would not be considered. There is a certain dishonesty and a great deal of double standards in those that raise this issue.
The fact is the CRU was threatened from a source in the US, that their computer systems would be compromised if they didn’t hand over the data. That has nothing to do with science but a lot to do with a criminal act.

Paul D
· August 6, 2011

“three so-called inquiries headed by people with every reason to not find anything wrong with their behaviour, indeed even not asking the important questions!”

So what are you saying here??
That the British university system is corrupt??
The issue has never been about behaviour. The issue is whether the analysis on temperature records that the CRU conduct is sound. Since the CRU is not the only analysis of temperature records, why would the issue of behaviour be relevant?

The science is just as correct today, as it was before the emails were stolen. And as many sane people have pointed out, who would draw a fantasy conclusion from a bunch of personal emails. I and you send emails with dodgy comments everyday, so by definition we are all guilty of saying things that will get misinterpreted.

I’m glad to see the Pilkeys included a pair of chapters on the professional denial industry. Of course, those who ignore and/or deny the overwhelming science supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change will just as surely ignore and/or deny the overwhelming facts demonstrating that Big Energy, intent as it is on maintaining the current destructive but immensely profitable fossil fuel-only paradigm as long as possible, is controlling the puppet strings. C’est la vie…

The Kolbert question is one that will forever remain without an answer, because, frankly, it’s unanswerable. Now, I see another response here where someone stated, rather circularly, that the group of scientists about whom Kolbert asks didn’t engineer a conspiracy, but were rather dupes of a group of scientists who engineered a conspiracy. And with that constituting what passes for denialist logic nowadays, it’s small wonder they’ve become so frustrated as of late. 😉

Dan Pangburn
· July 24, 2011

Those who have a good understanding of relevant science (such as the Mechanical Engineering disciplines that I am familiar with including thermodynamics, conservation of energy, feedback control theory, computer modeling and heat transfer) and have actually looked at the facts (such as the time-integral of sunspot numbers) are aware that the planet is on a cooling trend and will remain on a cooling trend for decades.

El Niños and La Ninas are oscillations above and below the trend. The average global temperature (agt) for 2010 was high because of an El Nino that peaked in March 2010. The agt for June 2011 is 0.31°C cooler than the March 2010 peak (I average the reports which are available on the web from the five agencies. Google “climate change is dominated by natural phenomena” for a pdf that gives the links and an equation that calculates average global temperatures since 1895, that’s 115 years and counting, with an accuracy of 88.4% (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence)). The average so far in 2011 is 0.24°C cooler than the 2010 average.

Both the claim that the planet is n a cooling trend and that sunspot activity is regulating it have been thoroughly debunked (seriously, check out Global Climate Change: A Primer it really does cover every denialist claim I’ve ever heard, including every one in this thread so far). Cherry-picking a recent peak in noisy data, and then extrapolating from there while ignoring longer data series is a common technique in the denial industry.

Using just the past year to illustrate that a trend has “reversed” is pretty much the definition of cherry-picking data. Plus extremes in weather are another potential consequence of climate change, so while we’re using just the past year how about all those temperature extremes and storms?

I hate to double comment but this just occurred to me (see, scientists can be fallible). Since we haven’t even truly hit the hottest part of the summer yet, I’m not surprised that 2011 is “lower on average” than 2010, seeing how the 2011 data comes mostly from winter and spring months. Does that mean we can use the past month’s weather to show that the “cooling trend” has reversed?

I’ve noticed that since June 21 the days have been getting slightly shorter. If this trend continues, by this time next year we’ll be trapped in perpetual darkness!

Chris F
· July 24, 2011

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Sorry SFS but you are the denier here. Much more science debunks the AGW hypothesis than supports it but you absolutely refuse to see it. You will not change your mind no matter what the facts say so you can’t be helped. I wish you well.

Does anyone ever notice that the people who say “it’s snowing really hard in winter, global warming can’t be happening” don’t also say “wow, all-time heat records are being broken all over the U.S. and the world this summer, maybe there’s something to that global warming stuff”?

Well, I see plenty of room for legitimate debate and argument on the climate change side of the house everything is not “settled” particularly with respect to downscaling and making actionable projections — but the denialist position has simply degenerated from a (very) few legitimate questions about the IPCC mis-edits and some ill-considered language by scientists in emails — to far-fetched and delusory conspiratorial fantasies…

Dan Pangburn
· July 24, 2011

So Fri,

It us unclear why, if you actually are a scientist, you would accept what a book says as being correct when a complete detailed presentation that you can easily check yourself, demonstrates that the book is incorrect.

You state that sunspot activity has been ‘debunked’. I too found no correlation with TSI which is what ‘climate scientists’ apparently limit themselves to. No one else has looked at the time integral of sunspot numbers which gives excellent correlation.

The cause of the temperature run-up in the 20th century and the flat and declining temperature trend for the latest decade have been discovered.

A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of accepted measurements from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). See the equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, and 3/10/11).

The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.

This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through May, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 22.3% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 22.3% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period. The trend of the average of the five reporting agencies has declined steeply since the peak of the last El Nino in about March 2010.

As the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise in the 21st century while the agt does not, more people will realize that they have been deceived.

I challenge the premise of your argument. There is no evidence for a leveling off or cooling trend in the last decade. Choosing models the cherry-pick local maxima in a noisy data set and then extrapolate out from the noise instead of the trend are not sufficient or robust. It’s like watching the tide go out and then concluding from six hours of observation that the ocean is draining. At best it’s flawed science and at worst it’s manufactured doubt being intentionally hoisted upon the public in an attempt to discredit real science.

Chris F
· July 24, 2011

Phil Jones himself of CRU said there’s been no statistically significant warming for the last fifteen years. Is he a liar too?

Phil Jones himself of CRU said there’s been no statistically significant warming for the last fifteen years. Is he a liar too?

Not at all, you’re just deliberately misrepresenting his statement:

Phil Jones is saying there is a warming trend but it’s not statistically significant. He’s not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He’s discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period

I didn’t misrepresent anything at all! Look at what I said then look at what you posted right below it!
Warming has flatlined for fifteen years despite increases of CO2, end of story, end of AGW fantasy. That’s why you guys are losing more and more of the public every day, you say we’re all going to die of the heat and then the truth comes out that it hasn’t really warmed at all in the last decade and a half.
That’s the problem with you unskeptical true believers, you keep telling us lies all the time when facts show otherwise.
The sea level rise is accelerating…it’s not, it’s decelerating.
Decadal temp. increase is rising at a faster rate than previous increases…it’s not. The rate of rise is the same as for previous increases.
The Arctic is losing ice fast…the same things were said by earlier Arctic explorers in their time and these can be found in old news releases. And then the ice came back years later.
Global SST’s are increasing…they’re not and the Argo bouy system confirms this.
This is a self feeding destructive game where dire proclamations get the funding dollars and those same dollars buy more dire proclamations. Any and all funding needs to be stopped immediately to bring this scam to an end and fortunately where I live in Canada this is starting to happen. Reality is starting to take back control. If all funding were to stop immediately there would be no more scientists making the claims they are now for the simple reason that it’s not profitable. Even Hansen and Gore wouldn’t be walking the streets with end of world signs, they’d just wisely move on to other things.
This is the reality that you are facing as more governments realize this is a stupid game that they can’t afford and it won’t make one whit of difference with the climate.
I have to give you a plug here SFS for allowing these skeptical views on your site, many of them don’t but you seem like a fair player who is confident of his views and I respect you for that.

The idea that climate scientists are just in it for the money is, frankly, laughable, especially coming from a denial industry deeply entrenched in an energy lobby investing millions into manufacturing doubt.

Chris F
· July 25, 2011

Then lets see who’s right. Cut all funding and see if those who are screaming the loudest will continue. If any scientist or spokesman like Gore actually believe any of this they will continue on even selling their homes in order to self- fund their projects. It’s done all the time by people who believe in their product and think there’s a future in it and toil away in their garage. Some succeed but most don’t. Let’s take away the public funds and see who remains committed to the cause.
You won’t agree to this because you know I’m right when I said they would all abandon the cause. That’s because the only reason they’re in it IS because of the money and fame. They know in their hearts and minds that none of these predicted catastrophes is going to come to pass and they know damn well if they come out and say things don’t look so bad after all that the money dries up.
Let’s take away that incentive and settle this once and for all.
Oh, and in case you haven’t been paying attention, the energy lobby has been throwing millions at the AGW scam for years now, far more than they ever paid into the “denial” industry as you call it.
And I’m not assuming anything about Phil Jones, I’m just pointing out how he said there’s been no statistical warming for fifteen years. How can you be any clearer than that?
The CERN results are out now and it’s one more debunking of the AGW theory but let me guess, there’s a team already assembled on your side to say the scientists involved are in the pay of big oil or some other ad hominem. Can’t let facts get in the way of a good story now can we?

This whole “climate scientists are only in it for the money” bullshit is the most dishonest, hateful, tripe that the denial lobby has at their disposal. How many wealthy climate scientists do you know? None? How ’bout energy lobbyists?

Funny how, if you read this thread, only the climate change deniers are insulting individuals and using ad hominems.

Chris F
· July 25, 2011

Those are the only ones I’ve ever heard of and I admire him for being that committed but I can guarantee you that the wealthier ones like Hansen and Gore would do no such thing. The scientists gets the fame, the University or whoever he works for gets the cash to keep the research going. If he’s honest and says it looks all natural to me then the grants stop. Just like the media, if it bleeds it leads.
Nothing unusual is happening to the climate. .6 degrees C warming in a century is neither unusual or anything to be fearful about. Reality, that’s observational, not model-based, says the only response should be adaptation when and if anything occurs. If we kill our economies with energy strangling policies then we’ll be much less able to deal with adaptation in the future. And that adaptation means adapting to cooler temperatures as well because that’s where we’re headed for the next few decades. Cooling is a much larger problem than any minor warming and we’re going to find that out the hard way. This is observational fact and also based on past history, no modelling involved or needed.

Gore is a scientist now? Seriously? LOL. Gore is a spokesman, and his global climate change campaign didn’t win him any friends until it became abundantly clear to any one paying attention that anthropogenic global climate change is real. We’re already seeing the first climate refugees leaving Tuvalu as their aquifer turn salty with the rising sea. Real tragedies are happening to real people, and you condemn them with your ignorance.

Everything you’ve said has been debunked by the links provided. Repetition does not breed truth.

Chris F
· July 26, 2011

Two posts above I specified Gore as a spokesman, pay attention. He’s also a snake oil salesman and crass opportunist and hypocrite extraordinaire. No one pays any attention to him anymore but he did have his fifteen minutes and then some.
If Tuvulus water is turning salty it’s because they’ve pumped more than can be replenished and nothing more. The population has incresed to more than the island can handle. I call BS on the “climate refugee” canard, any damage to the island itself has been caused directly by man and climate has SFA to do with it: http://www.jica.go.jp/fiji/english/office/topics/pdf/COP15_Poster.pdf

There are no “real tragedies” happening to “real people” anywhere on earth caused by global warming because of man and you know you can’t find any proof that there is because there isn’t any. So my “ignorance” is causing no tragedies. OTOH, the remedies proposed by the global warming industry will cause many millions of people to die because of lack of heat caused by strangulation of our fuel supplies, hunger because food has become too expensive and just general poverty caused by these foolish and misguided policies.
Where you are terrified of some minor warming over many decades I see more agriculture opening up and more areas to be exploited for fuel and minerals. That’s progress. What you are proposing is regress and that’s never good for any people anywhere.
Why is it that greenies like yourself never walk the walk? Why are you still using petroleum products and eating food that you didn’t grow yourself? Why do you demand that we bend to your whim of austerity? If you seriously believe the AGW scam you should be living the life of austerity yourself before trying to force it on the rest of us but once again, that’s something you would never do, you want us to all suffer the same fate together and call me ignorant when I don’t subscribe to your beliefs. You and Hansen and Gore and Suzuki will all have to walk the talk before us rationalists will even give a serious thought to what you propose.

Telling us we have to follow your gov. funded science and drastically change our lives doesn’t sound too good when non gov. funded science says there’s not really much of a problem worth worrying about. And don’t give me the tired old big oil funding argument, most of them don’t have any funding at all but use proven observation to come to their conclusions. Why wouldn’t they come to the same conclusions as the gov.fun scientists? Maybe it’s because the conclusions aren’t already paid for and they’re free to come to their own conclusions without having someone urging them to toe the party line in their findings. The skeptical scientists (as they all SHOULD be) are getting no riches from their position regarding MMGW and are getting serious flak from their colleagues yet they still will make all their methods and uncertainties available to anyone who wants to test their theories. The warmists group?…err… not so much.
I was on the warmist side for most of my life when I first heard about it in the eighties but around six or so years ago the dire predictions caused me to look more closely and and the unscientific methods that I found were alarming, things like not releasing data and changing data without documentation. Then the name calling and attempts to link the information seeker to the tobacco lobby really swayed me over to the realist side where I get more convinced every day that this is a bogus scam caused by funding and groupthink. I’m sure you’ll point out the book again and try and convince me I’m wrong and they have my way of thinking all covered but you know what? I’m a rational hands-on kind of guy who’s 52 years old and there’s not a whole lot I can’t figure out in the world whether it’s fixing machinery or politics or planning for my future. When someone wants to show me a better way to do things they better have a good reason to show me how their way is better than mine and so far I haven’t seen any of that. Lots of arm waving and threats but nothing to show me how my way is worse. Telling me is one thing but the alarmists haven’t even come close to convincing me. Maybe if they were more transparent with their methods and data and would get off the political soapbox I might come around, but demanding I change based on their model-driven hypothesis just doesn’t cut it.
And more people think like me than they do you so you’ve got a long row to hoe.

Frantic and hysterical with nothing of substance to offer, erected absurd strawmen because all you bunk is debunked. Interestingly enough, the only solutions I’ve discussed involve geoengineering which create jobs and don’t force anyone to change their behavior. Your little rant above reveals only that you live on some cloud nine la-la fantasy world and aren’t interested in having a real discussion.

I’ve been trying to stay out of the fray here (primarily because I have a lot of work to do this week), but something that Chris F said needs to be addressed.

“OTOH, the remedies proposed by the global warming industry will cause many millions of people to die because of lack of heat caused by strangulation of our fuel supplies, hunger because food has become too expensive and just general poverty caused by these foolish and misguided policies.”

How in the hell is encouraging energy efficiency and alternative fuel sources going to result in the deaths of millions of people?

Chris F
· July 27, 2011

I’m the one who has been trying to have a discussion but I’m just talking to myself I guess.

WSM,throwing billions of dollars at rays of sun and breezes which will never have the density to do anything meaningful is taking money out of the mouths of the hungry in poor countries that need food and medicine now, not arm waving about how they and us will die from disasters sometime in the future. But the green elites are quite willing to sacrifice those people now in the false belief that they will save many more in the future.
Green is the cult of death and their own words condemn them as such. This isn’t about the climate at all, it’s just being used as an excuse for massive world poverty depopulation.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

■Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

■Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

■Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”

“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

■Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore’s mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome.
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

■Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world’s first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world’s central carbon trading body.

If you want to be aligned with this thinking and ideology you’re free to do so but I’m having nothing to do with it. Until you open your eyes and see that you too are just one of their pawns then you are no better than them and should not be listened to.
Remember, these are major players in this game and these statements are not just one-offs.

Quote mining and dishonest misrepresentations of the facts. No thank you. The denial industry is more than happy to throw reality out the window to support their ideology. What’s hilarious is that you’ve spent this entire conversation condemning global warming scientists for using scare tactics to drum up funding by making dire predictions, the proceed to do the exact same thing by claiming that there’s some massive green conspiracy to depopulate the world. Every time you make a claim, we provide a refutation, and instead of addressing it, you just gish-gallop on to your next unsupported absurdity, all the while ignoring anything that anyone else has said. I call bullshit on you and your sorry excuse for “trying to have a discussion”. you’re not interested in discussing anything.

Chris F
· July 29, 2011

The onus is on you to provide proof of your claims before we transform our way of life and all you have are computer models that have been proven to be useless in climate prediction. Observation has shown them to be wrong on all counts. The global temperature is still below Hansen’s scenario “C” despite increases in CO2. Now you’ve been reduced to trying to link natural weather disasters to global warming and most folks are just laughing and shaking their heads at that. When I say you I don’t mean you personally but the warmist side in general.
Now the latest from NASA is that the atmosphere sheds a lot more excess heat to space than was previously thought. Every day new studies show how bogus this all is but you will not even have a second look.

“Quote mining and dishonest misrepresentations of the facts.”
Those are their own words that they hung themselves with and there are many more damning quotes from different players. How you can just poo-poo that and try and explain it away as out of context shows that you will do and say anything to defend these dangerous people and their ideas. As I said before, you are being used as a pawn in their game and as a scientist it’s beneath you. Open your eyes and your mind and start to question these claims as any good scientist would. Look at the claims being made outside of your particular field. Any skeptical mind would find them wanting.
Reality is what is, not what you think it should be.

Well, I’m glad the onus is on me since this comment thread is filled with links supporting anthropogenic global climate change and debunking every claim you’ve made. You have simply opted to ignore them and hope that no one notice. I’m done wasting my time with you. You aren’t interested in debate and you’re last few comments have been nothing but redundant wagging of the conspiracy dog. Check the comments policy, we have a low tolerance for parroting.

The whole idea that developing green technologies will somehow destroy your way of life is absurd. Do you have some amazing ability to detect where your electricity is coming from? Can you tell when your house is powered by coal, nuclear, wind, or solar. No, of course not. Has the green police come banging on your door and forced you to buy a hybrid. Nope (and for the record, I’m a truck drivin’ man and have never told someone they have to switch to a different car). Making fuel efficient cars, installing bike lanes, encouraging people to live sustainably doesn’t do jack shit to your lifestyle. Unless you somehow think the dependence on foreign oil from politically unstable regions is essential to your way of life. Fear mongering is not an appropriate response to science of reality.

But I tell you what, this post is a book review, so why don’t you pick up the book and actually give it a read?

Joe
· July 29, 2011

I’m not here to be a Chris F cheerleader, but it’s hard to argue with a straight face that the cost of greening society isn’t costing real money. ‘destroy your life’, well no. Cost you a pretty penny – absolutely.

Anyone who has purchased a water heater, a HVAC system, or a new vehicle has paid a steep premium for increased efficiency standards. I’ve bought 2 of the 3, and felt the hit in my wallet. In one case, I’ll probably make it back eventually in fuel savings (car). In the other case (HVAC), the cost was almost double what it for an acceptable model 3-4 years ago and that’s money I’ll never see in savings.

A cost increase on everything we heat, cool, drive, or transport is nothing to shake a stick at. It’s having a real impact on everyone in the country. We can argue about if the cost is worth it, but the cost of greening the country is very real.

Chris F
· July 30, 2011

Only debunked in your mind, the science and observations are on mine, but I see we will never agree.
Again, kudos for allowing dissent on your site, that shows confidence in your views and I can respect that, even if I vehemently disagree.
You’re a good man SFS.

Chris F
· July 31, 2011

Well I went to the link you provided for a look and read through all 157? or so for and against and felt like I was in an alternate universe. Darn near every one of the arguments he says is debunked is wishful thinking. Just because he chooses not to embrace the latest scientific findings and observations doesn’t mean they’re wrong. As I continued down the list I kept thinking wrong, wrong, and wrong again! You could choose darn near any one of his supposedly debunked points and I could counter (with links) to scientific findings and observations that will either prove him wrong or most certainly show that his version of fact isn’t necessarily so. The hockey stick version of past temperatures has now replaced thousands of studies done over the decades that show it was warmer during the MWP? Wishful thinking and obviously agenda driven. Go to CO2science.com which will show it was warmer than today in the MWP and globally, not just regionally. It’s many little things like this that blow holes in the hypothesis that show it’s not really about the science but something else. Same with what is referred to as the independent investigation of climategate. Every single person doing the investigating had their hands in the pie and had every reason to exonerate those under investigation. Qualified skeptics like Lindzen or Steve Mcintyre should have been involved if it was to be seen as impartial but instead it was just more of the same incestuous back slapping that we’ve come to expect from the Team.
If anything, the link you provided just bolsters the fact that the science certainly isn’t settled as to what has caused the recent warming. I look upon that particular site as mainly warmist propaganda set up to look as though the science is settled and that’s the last word. It was a hoot!
The hypothesis of MMGW being something to really worry about was put to rest even before climategate but that event opened a lot of eyes and the dropping belief that MMGW is something that we have to “do something” about is only going to increase. And then will come the political backlash and it won’t be pretty for all scientists in general. The chicken littles have done a terrible disservice to science and it’s too bad those who knew better didn’t step up sooner and show some self-policing in the discipline. I’ve always had pretty good faith in science all my life but this particular theme has shaken my belief to the core.

Paul D
· August 6, 2011

Chris F: “Phil Jones himself of CRU said there’s been no statistically significant warming for the last fifteen years. Is he a liar too?”

You are misquoting him, so what does that make you??
Your misquote originates from a BBC interview with Jones.

He said:
“I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”

In other words there wasn’t enough data in 2009 to publish the results, if it were published, a few more years data may have proven that calculation to be wrong. What he effectively declared was the known fact that you need many years of data to see a trend.

Paul D
· August 6, 2011

Chris F:
“Warming has flatlined for fifteen years despite increases of CO2, end of story, end of AGW fantasy.”

Is 15 years enough to determine a long term trend. Please state how you have calculated that?

Paul D
· August 6, 2011

Chris F:
“If we kill our economies with energy strangling policies then we’ll be much less able to deal with adaptation in the future. And that adaptation means adapting to cooler temperatures as well because that’s where we’re headed for the next few decades. Cooling is a much larger problem than any minor warming and we’re going to find that out the hard way. This is observational fact and also based on past history, no modelling involved or needed.”

Paul D:
That is one crazy statement Chris.
Whilst governments are licking their lips at the thought of grabbing some oil in the Arctic, here we have Chris saying they are wasting their time.

Paul D
· August 6, 2011

Chris F: “Two posts above I specified Gore as a spokesman, pay attention. He’s also a snake oil salesman and crass opportunist and hypocrite extraordinaire. No one pays any attention to him anymore but he did have his fifteen minutes and then some.”

Paul D:
I think Skeptics (and really only the American variety) make more of a fuss about Gore than anyone else.

Chris F: “There are no “real tragedies” happening to “real people” anywhere on earth caused by global warming because of man and you know you can’t find any proof that there is because there isn’t any. ”

Paul D:
People have a short life span, so the definition of tragedy to ordinary folk like you Chris usually means something that happens relatively quickly and with a well defined cause. You and many others perceive ‘tragedy’ as something as a train accident or someone dying of cancer in within a few years. Climate tragedies are ‘statistical’ and show up as statistics over many decades. They do happen to real people in the statistical sense.

Chris F: “So my “ignorance” is causing no tragedies. ”

Paul D:
You have made an assumption there without firstly proving that there are no climate tragedies. Very unprofessional.

Chris F:
“OTOH, the remedies proposed by the global warming industry will cause many millions of people to die because of lack of heat caused by strangulation of our fuel supplies, hunger because food has become too expensive and just general poverty caused by these foolish and misguided policies.”

Paul D:
You state that the Sun can not provide enough energy. Yet I presume you know that fossil fuels are finite. Hence you are committing people to death, since you are effectively getting them addicted to the fuels, knowing that they won’t have them later. Isn’t that dishonest on your part?
You accuse others of causing starvation, yet you are scamming them with your own dishonesty. It is far more honest to accept we have a problem and to deal with it.

Chris F: ”Where you are terrified of some minor warming over many decades I see more agriculture opening up and more areas to be exploited for fuel and minerals. That’s progress.”

Paul D:
And how would this agriculture survive without biodiversity?
Magic?
You call it progress I call it land mismanagement and denial of responsibility. Progress requires knowledge, but you deny that knowledge and hold on to the past.

Paul D
· August 6, 2011

Chris said: ”Why is it that greenies like yourself never walk the walk? Why are you still using petroleum products and eating food that you didn’t grow yourself?

Paul D:
Explain your logic??
The problem is the RATE of accumulation of green house gases in the atmosphere. Or in other words, the complete exclusion of the use of fossil fuels is not particularly an issue.
I think the problem you have Chris, is that you don’t have a clue about technology or the motives for developing it.
Finally why does one have to grow ones own food to be green?? I don’t think anyone is planning to de-industrialise soon and especially farming or food production.

Lets have a look at the UK non-greenies in action Chris:

1. We have Sainsburys, one of the biggest supermarkets in the UK replacing all of their refrigeration with smart grid fridges that are compatible with renewable energy. They minimise car parking spaces for staff and encourage staff to use public transport or employ local people that can cycle or walk. They install rain water capture and numerous other green technologies that you allege only ‘greenies’ use.

2. Most major companies in the UK employ ‘green’ sustainability officers, not because they have to, but because they have a lot of brain cells that tell them they need to. These include Ikea, Google, Marks and Spencer, Siemens, Johnson and Johnson to name a few.
It is likely that most people in the UK now are greenish without knowing it and we have a smaller debt than the US!
Plus we have a greenish right wing government.
So, what’s your problem Chris?? Instead of whinning, just get on with the job of changing.

I can list numerous other ‘green’ developments Chris. The reality is, you are just pointlessly dragging your feet and trying to avoid the inevitable.

Chris F
· August 6, 2011

Wow paul D, that was quite a bit. I’ll have a go at some of them here.

“In other words there wasn’t enough data in 2009 to publish the results, if it were published, a few more years data may have proven that calculation to be wrong. What he effectively declared was the known fact that you need many years of data to see a trend.”
So while he acknowledged there was no warming to speak of others were screaming that it was getting hotter every year and he did nothing to set them straight. One even declared it was “a travesty”.

“Is 15 years enough to determine a long term trend. Please state how you have calculated that?”

See above. None of these scientists who are literally paid to find man made global warming said anything about this until skeptical scientists pointed it out and climategate did too.

Chris F:
“If we kill our economies with energy strangling policies then we’ll be much less able to deal with adaptation in the future. And that adaptation means adapting to cooler temperatures as well because that’s where we’re headed for the next few decades. Cooling is a much larger problem than any minor warming and we’re going to find that out the hard way. This is observational fact and also based on past history, no modelling involved or needed.”

Paul D:
That is one crazy statement Chris.
Whilst governments are licking their lips at the thought of grabbing some oil in the Arctic, here we have Chris saying they are wasting their time.”

The US gov. isn’t licking it’s lips at any exploration in the Arctic or anywhere to be exact. In fact they’ve been as obstructionist as can be because of ideology, reality be damned. They might not even approve of the Keystone pipeline here from Canada which would enable them to have a secure source of oil from a friendly country. Oh no, let’s oppose this too because of CO2 ideology. At least we have a realistic gov. in power here for the next four years and will fast-track the pipeline to the Pacific where the Chinese are licking their lips and have lots of US cash to buy it with. The Chinese aren’t going to be dragged into this CO2 phobia and neither are we. Or India. We have no intention of joining your race to the economic bottom.

“Chris F: “So my “ignorance” is causing no tragedies. ”

Paul D:
You have made an assumption there without firstly proving that there are no climate tragedies. Very unprofessional.”

Those claiming there are climate tragedies do so entirely without any proof. The onus is on them to prove it, not us to try and disprove their assumptions. That’s professional and the scientific method but the warmists aren’t to keen to give up their data and methodologies and uncertainties.

“Paul D:
You state that the Sun can not provide enough energy. Yet I presume you know that fossil fuels are finite. Hence you are committing people to death, since you are effectively getting them addicted to the fuels, knowing that they won’t have them later. Isn’t that dishonest on your part?
You accuse others of causing starvation, yet you are scamming them with your own dishonesty. It is far more honest to accept we have a problem and to deal with it.”

We’ve been promised for a hundred years that oil would peak in ten years time and as it sits now there is more proven reserves than at any time in history and no hard data to show otherwise. Will it run out? Most likely but it won’t happen overnight and as the price slowly rises because of scarcity the world will move to other forms of energy, maybe even something we haven’t thought of yet. Humanity is very versatile and ingenious if left unhindered by government. This was one of the granddaddy chicken little scares that I realized long ago was just fear mongering by special interests.

“2. Most major companies in the UK employ ‘green’ sustainability officers, not because they have to, but because they have a lot of brain cells that tell them they need to. These include Ikea, Google, Marks and Spencer, Siemens, Johnson and Johnson to name a few.
It is likely that most people in the UK now are greenish without knowing it and we have a smaller debt than the US!
Plus we have a greenish right wing government.”

They do this to greenwash mostly. If money is saved well more power to them. And I almost choked when you referred to Cameron as right wing! You poor unlucky souls haven’t had a government in power that could reasonable be referred to as right wing since Thatcher! Hope you’re enjoying the rise in people having fuel poverty because of the left wing ideologies from past successive governments there. The folks there have had it up to here with the global warming prophesies that always fail and cost them dearly and will take back the country next election if you have the sense to actually get a conservative leader that IS conservative. Obama is toast next year in the US and I hope to hell it’s not to late to turn the country around.

“I can list numerous other ‘green’ developments Chris. The reality is, you are just pointlessly dragging your feet and trying to avoid the inevitable.”

No, I’m just not going to be conned by climate astrologists who claim with certainty to see a terrible future unless my pocket gets picked by the green nonsense. If green was cheap it wouldn’t need any subsides and companies would do it all the time.
BTW, did you see the Rasmussen poll this week that showed that 69% of Americans believed that climate scientists doctored the data to prove warming was man made? Get used to numbers like that, your outlandish claims of future catastrophe are killing your own cause. The average Joe sees through it as the poll shows. Three papers came out this week alone that pepper the MMGW scam full of holes. One by NASA one by Pielke and I forget who authored the other one.

Paul D
· August 7, 2011

Chris F:
“In other words there wasn’t enough data in 2009 to publish the results, if it were published, a few more years data may have proven that calculation to be wrong. What he effectively declared was the known fact that you need many years of data to see a trend.” So while he acknowledged there was no warming to speak of others were screaming that it was getting hotter every year and he did nothing to set them straight. One even declared it was “a travesty”.

Paul D:
You haven’t read my comment. He stated that he had done some calculations using data that wasn’t sufficient to calculate whether it was warming or cooling. He didn’t acknowledge there was warming or cooling and he qualified that by stating in public why. You are imposing your own belief onto his statement. Which suggests you haven’t a clue what you are talking about or understand what he said.

Chris F:
“None of these scientists who are literally paid to find man made global warming said anything about this until skeptical scientists pointed it out and climategate did too.”

Paul D:
Why would scientists need to state basic facts about statistical analysis of a noisy signal??
Their job generally isn’t to educate the public on a subject they did at school and forgot or flunked the exam.
It is a common technique in finding trends and signals in all science and in engineering. The sampling period is determined by the nature of the signal, it isn’t common practice to tell people like you the sampling period. People like you just play a CD and think it is magic. An engineer knows how many bits of info are required to deliver the music. Please state which skeptical scientists pointed something (I haven’t a clue what you mean, and I don’t think you do either) out.

Paul D
· August 7, 2011

Chris F’
“The US gov. isn’t licking it’s lips at any exploration in the Arctic or anywhere to be exact. In fact they’ve been as obstructionist as can be because of ideology, reality be damned. They might not even approve of the Keystone pipeline here from Canada which would enable them to have a secure source of oil from a friendly country. ”

Paul D.
You haven’t actually addressed the statement I have made, you claimed that it is cooling and that will continue. Yet oil companies and governments are getting ready for warming and the exploitation of fossil fuel deposits in the Arctic. Either you haven’t a clue about climate, or the oil companies and governments do. Who is correct, you or the governments and corporations?

Paul D
· August 7, 2011

Chris F:
“Those claiming there are climate tragedies do so entirely without any proof. The onus is on them to prove it, not us to try and disprove their assumptions. That’s professional and the scientific method but the warmists aren’t to keen to give up their data and methodologies and uncertainties.”

Paul D:

The issue isn’t ‘us’ it is you Chris. You made the statement that you believe that there are no climate tragedies. I also pointed out that the tragedies that are likely to occur are statistical in nature not personal. You need to decide what a tragedy means to you. I also suggest you actually look up the meaning of the word ‘tragedy’ which is generally linked to drama and emotion rather than facts.

Paul D
· August 7, 2011

Chris F:
“Will it run out? Most likely but it won’t happen overnight and as the price slowly rises because of scarcity…”

Paul D

But you have stated quite clearly that you want to use that oil to improve the lives of others. Even without your dreams, fossil fuel demand is predicted to double in just a few years. In fact most large companies are well aware of this, because they know prices will go up.

This is also connected to warming in the arctic, which you are denying is or will happen.

Chris F:
“…the world will move to other forms of energy, maybe even something we haven’t thought of yet.”

Paul D:

What do you think renewable energy is??
Most research that is producing results is in the field of renewable and sustainable energy. This ranges from new battery technologies, energy storage, increasing efficiencies of capturing solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy etc.
The technologies range from the simple to the complex that use quantum effects.

I’m guessing you don’t have a clue what is going on in many of these areas. It is a big and growing business. It will continue to grow because there is a growing need.

Paul D
· August 7, 2011

Chris F:
“They do this to greenwash mostly. If money is saved well more power to them. And I almost choked when you referred to Cameron as right wing! You poor unlucky souls haven’t had a government in power that could reasonable be referred to as right wing since Thatcher!”

Paul D:
That says a lot about you Chris. It implies that you hold onto an ideology no matter what is happening around you. In fact, most of your comments are obsessed with political ideology and you don’t seem to be able to turn it off??

Paul D
· August 7, 2011

Chris F:
“BTW, did you see the Rasmussen poll this week that showed that 69% of Americans believed that climate scientists doctored the data to prove warming was man made?”

Paul D:
I don’t think American opinion is going to mean a lot for much longer Chris. Maybe you need to get used to that?

Paul D
· August 7, 2011

Chris F:
“Get used to numbers like that, your outlandish claims of future catastrophe are killing your own cause.”

Paul D:
What outlandish claims have I made??
You seem to believe in individuals, but keep assuming I am in a group of some sort. Doesn’t that contradict your own beliefs? Or have I got something wrong here and you don’t actually believe people act as individuals??

Paul D
· August 7, 2011

Chris F:
“You poor unlucky souls haven’t had a government in power that could reasonable be referred to as right wing since Thatcher!”

Paul D:
I don’t recognise left or right politics. They are both failures. If either can implement and encourage changes that reduce green house emissions and other green actions, then I support them whether left or right.
The biggest problem is that the old ideologies of both sides are driving their green policies. The left want to protect old jobs, the right want the same for different reasons.
The reality is both are wrong.

Chris F
· August 13, 2011

Chris F:
“Will it run out? Most likely but it won’t happen overnight and as the price slowly rises because of scarcity…”

Paul D

But you have stated quite clearly that you want to use that oil to improve the lives of others. Even without your dreams, fossil fuel demand is predicted to double in just a few years. In fact most large companies are well aware of this, because they know prices will go up.

This is also connected to warming in the arctic, which you are denying is or will happen.

Reply:
And by doubling that means more people will benefit from oil and pull themselves out of poverty. This is a good thing.

Chris F:
“…the world will move to other forms of energy, maybe even something we haven’t thought of yet.”

Paul D:

What do you think renewable energy is??
Most research that is producing results is in the field of renewable and sustainable energy. This ranges from new battery technologies, energy storage, increasing efficiencies of capturing solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy etc.
The technologies range from the simple to the complex that use quantum effects.

I’m guessing you don’t have a clue what is going on in many of these areas. It is a big and growing business. It will continue to grow because there is a growing need.

Reply:
Renewable energy is old failed technology that was displaced by fossil fuels mostly and enabled us to come as far as quickly as we have. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that our lives have gotten better and lifespans have increased since the industrial age started?
You can put “new and improved” all you want on windmills and solar panels but the fact remains these are old failed methods of generating electricity and will never amount to more than a fraction of our generating needs.
And don’t assume I don’t have a clue about the industry. I’ve been doing a lot of research since figuring out this is costing us all a lot in taxes for subsidies to these industries. Take away the subsidies and they close up shop because they can’t come close to competing with real sources of power generation. With government cutbacks going on around the world these subsidies will be among the first to go and I won’t shed a tear.

Chris F:
“They do this to greenwash mostly. If money is saved well more power to them. And I almost choked when you referred to Cameron as right wing! You poor unlucky souls haven’t had a government in power that could reasonable be referred to as right wing since Thatcher!”

Paul D:
That says a lot about you Chris. It implies that you hold onto an ideology no matter what is happening around you. In fact, most of your comments are obsessed with political ideology and you don’t seem to be able to turn it off??

Reply:
You’re right, I can’t turn it off. That’s because climate change isn’t a scientific problem, it’s strictly a political one. But the left is bound and determined to ram this down my throat whether I believe in it or not because they are so cocksure of themselves. The science is far from settled and crumbling around the AGW beliefs daily. The left believes it all lock stock and barrel for the most part and the right doesn’t. I’m more right then left so of course it makes sense that I can’t turn it off.

Chris F:
“BTW, did you see the Rasmussen poll this week that showed that 69% of Americans believed that climate scientists doctored the data to prove warming was man made?”

Paul D:
I don’t think American opinion is going to mean a lot for much longer Chris. Maybe you need to get used to that?

Reply:
I have to laugh at that one. Politicians have one goal, to get reelected. They go against the will of the people and they’re toast. This is what is going to happen next Nov. and all this crap legislation will be rolled back. The EPA will be lucky if it’s not completely shut down. In times of strife such as we’re going through now, the economy is the only thing that matters, and rightly so. If the current administration doesn’t have the sense or the will to call off the dogs then they will be replaced by one that might just put the dogs down once and for all.
I think there’s some reality that you have to get used to…

Chris F:
“Get used to numbers like that, your outlandish claims of future catastrophe are killing your own cause.”

Paul D:
What outlandish claims have I made??
You seem to believe in individuals, but keep assuming I am in a group of some sort. Doesn’t that contradict your own beliefs? Or have I got something wrong here and you don’t actually believe people act as individuals??

Reply:
Well, by defending the warmists and all their solutions you have become one of the group, just like I am one of the skeptics, or deniers if you want to get mean about it. I don’t doubt climate change, I doubt the cause and extent of damage it’s predicted to cause by some scientists.

Chris F:
“You poor unlucky souls haven’t had a government in power that could reasonable be referred to as right wing since Thatcher!”

Paul D:
I don’t recognise left or right politics. They are both failures. If either can implement and encourage changes that reduce green house emissions and other green actions, then I support them whether left or right.
The biggest problem is that the old ideologies of both sides are driving their green policies. The left want to protect old jobs, the right want the same for different reasons.
The reality is both are wrong.

Reply:
Here we have some common ground. You are right, they both have been failures, but we disagree I’m sure on what those shortcomings are. I look with sadness that we’ve taxed and regulated all our big industries offshore and the good jobs that went with them. And I can see the obvious economic damage done by these green policies and the jobs they destroy and will vote for the one who will put an end to them all. I want to prosper and see my taxes reduced, not watch the country go into financial ruin and lose even more freedom because of the green dogma. Affluent societies care about the environment many times more than poor ones. Compare the US to any other poor country like Haiti or Ethiopia. Thay will literally cut down the last tree for heat or cooking because they’re too dirt poor to be able to afford an oil heater or electricity for a stove. Over here we won’t tolerate the Cuyahoga River catching fire anymore or a Bhopal type industrial accident that kills thousands. This is because we’re affluent and don’t have to spend every minute scrounging for food just to live. We have the time and inclination to clean up our own backyard that we soiled on our way to the top. If you want to help a country clean up it’s act then help make it an economic success. Green energy won’t fill the bill, it will just keep them in poverty forever. Cheap coal will do the trick nicely just like it works here. But first we have to get rid of the Colonialist attitude that they are too stupid to be able to make the choice that works best for them. Let the third world develop for God’s sake and get out of the way! They have no use for our climate superstitions and want to become like us and they deserve it every bit as much as we do. When they succeed they will start to clean up their own mess, just like we did. Keep them limited to crappy solar panels and windmills and they will not.
Maybe that’s the big plan right under our noses after all.

Badgersouth
· July 24, 2011

Kudos on an excellent post. I particularly like how you are dealing with the climate denier drones who are swarming on this comment thread.

Kudos to the Orrin and Keith Pilkey as well.

Badgersouth
· July 24, 2011

All of the pseudo-science poppycock being posted on this comment thread by climate deniers is also thoroughly debunked on SkepticalScience.com

Sorry I forgot to put up the link itself. Here is a link to some of the Climate Gate emails. This appears to be the “worst” ones. Most of these stand alone as being even more damning and awful than I thought before I went to look at them myself. Just skim or read them yourself.

The website states:
“They are all dated so you can trace them back to source if you want to read the full text.”

First, why do folks insist on saying the emails were “leaked”? They were “leaked” like a bank robber “leaks” bags of cash from a vault. No, they were stolen. Illegally hacked into–almost certainly, as it turns out, by people affiliated with, if not directly employed by, Rupert Murdoch.

Second, and far more importantly, there’s absolutely nothing in any of those messages that remotely resembles “evidence” of wrongdoing. That’t not what one inquiry said, not three, but five independent inquiries. They found lesser or greater amounts of sometimes unprofessional behavior among scientists frustrated by constant harassment from denialist thugs. And those scientists have promised to improve their behavior. But that’s hardly an indictment.

Third, even if it had turned out that every single person involved with “climategate” was indeed a lying, manipulative excuse for a scientists, nothing about the theory of anthropogenic climate change would change. Nothing. It’s about as certain as certain can be.

Bob
· July 25, 2011

You are strange the emails were hacked cause they were too specific. If they were stolen why have the Norfolk Police not provided an update since they started investigating? Because I’m sure they found they were leaked.

There is ample evidence to prove the enquires were all whitewashes. What a waste of money. The reputation of the CRU is gone now. They need to be more open and climate science is a clique the high priests feel they can hide their data and say take my word for it. Well I’m sorry I’ve done some research and the whole thing stinks for the CAGW crowd.

Pretend for a minute that the science is settled. If so, the global warming carbon cap crowd have produced essentially nothing with all of their settled science. Frankly, it’s been a massive FAIL that makes Sea Shepard look like competent agents for change and environmental action.

I’m fond of this quote on the issue from Walter Russel Mead

“Watching the colossal and implosive decline of the once mighty green movement to stop global warming has been an educational experience. It’s rare to see so many smart, idealistic and dedicated people look so clueless and fail so completely. From the anti-climax of the Cluster of Copenhagen, when world leaders assembled for the single most unproductive and chaotic global gathering ever held, the movement has gone from one catastrophic failure to the next.”

We’re way past primer time. As a political issue (the sphere where any ultimate solution has to be worked out), the anti-carbon crowd has been a spectacular failure. It’s hard to argue that their efforts have produced anything significant, and even harder to argue that they aren’t further from their ultimate goals than they were 2 years ago.

Interesting, frustrating, entertaining?, and quite sad.

Bob
· July 25, 2011

Jury is still out on man made global warming you need to read some the articles that tear apart pal reviewed articles. Science can only advanced when all data and meta data and code is available if we can’t replicate the work then its all garbage.

You can read up on all the bunk science that tries to discredit global climate change here – http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php and why those arguments are fallacious. If you really think there’s something specifically compelling, bring it up here and we’ll talk about it.

Dan Pangburn
· July 26, 2011

So Fri,
There are five agencies that report temperature anomalies. I graph them all and average them to avoid bias. Three of them provide temperature anomalies back to 1850. Only one source (Mauna Loa, Hawaii) at present provides the carbon dioxide level. I use the International sunspot numbers. Those are the data that I use. As shown in the graphs of them in the pdf made public 3/10/11 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true the temperature has been flat for over a decade. Perhaps you should actually look at the data before you make sweeping statements that are so easy to show as false.

The equation accurately calculates average global temperatures for over 115 years. That is not ‘cherry picking’. The huge thermal capacitance of the oceans will slow the longer (32 years or so) decline trend to only about -0.13°C per decade.

My work is completely VERIFIABLE. Anyone is welcome to check it. All of the data sources, the rationale and the equation are all freely available on the web. You won’t even need an FOIA decree to get it.

The simplicity of the answer is probably particularly galling to Climate Scientists. Tens of billions of dollars (grants from the deep pockets of governments) have been spent in futile efforts to prove that added CO2 caused Global Warming while an unpaid engineer with a desk-top computer and using simple engineering analysis has discovered what really determined the average global temperature history since 1895. If Climate Scientists had actually tried to find out what caused the warming instead of assuming that it was CO2 (and then trying to prove that it was) they may have discovered.

Follow our Twitter Account to see the latest posts and occasionally watch people fight with a bot that can't respond.

If you enjoy Southern Fried Science, consider contributing to our Patreon campaign. For just $5 per month, you can support the SFS Writers Fund, which helps compensate your favorite ocean science and conservation bloggers for their efforts.